Talk:Settler colonialism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Work

I am currently working on this article. Please discuss any changes or additions with me, I'll be glad to see how we can improve it. Not anymore, "thanks". Format aspects and so might be inconsistent because the article isn't complete yet. There is also many information that's missing which I'll add soon. --Rodrigo Cornejo 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC) lolololol

Israel

The IUSSP is cited in Wikipedia many times [1]. So much for WP:OR and reliable sources. Besides, there are many sections in Wikipedia that contain OR and are tagged, not deleted. Same goes for POV disputes. As it goes for jewish settlers being socialist or refugees, they settled in a new land. So, they were settlers. Feel free to dispute if it's colonialism or not, but political ideology does not exempt one from being contradictory. Socialism doesn't make the jewish settlers there any better or worse - you are just appealing to the no true Scotsman fallacy. Palestinians left because the 1948 Arab-Israeli War was instigated by arabs... so next time the russian army attacks Chechenya I'll say it's every single russian's fault. There was no national military organization in the Arab Palestinian community at the time of the war, and the war efforts were mainly done by other arab countries. Then again, don't insert your POV claiming that since some arabs started a war, other arabs deserve to be displaced - that's a hasty generalization. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 23:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference you gave says nothing about "settler colonialism". The section you added is your original research. Meanwhile you have also violated WP:3RR. Please do not revert again. Thanks. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rodrigo, please revert your emotional outburst[2] and I'll refrain from reporting you for 3RR. We can put this aside for the night and try discussing tomorrow in a rational way after a cool off. Thanks. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Indians in Fiji

Without knowing a lot about the subject, my impression is that the Indians in Fiji are an example of settler colonialism. --Richard 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not OR

http://books.google.com/books?q=settler+colonialism+israel&btnG=Search+Books That claim is outlandish. It's not OR to include a section discussing IF Israel has exibited the characteristics of settler colonialism. Then again, in the newly included section it is clearly stated that it could be so, but not that it is so. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 21:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As it was pointed out earlier, the content that you repeatedly reinsert is based on unreliable sources. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I repeat. Care to read the above to see that the IUSSP is cited in Wikipedia many times [3] If you don't think (shall I say "believe"?) that that isn't a reliable source, maybe you should point out why. You haven't done so. Remember that there are other reliable sources apart from the Tel Aviv University --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a good time for you to get familiar with WP:RS and other WP policies. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"The International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) promotes scientific studies of demography and population-related issues. Originally founded in 1928 and reconstituted in 1947, the IUSSP is the leading international professional association for individuals interested in population studies."[4] Does this not comply with WP:RS? If so, why not? --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, have you read this? [www.iussp.org/Brazil2001/s60/S64_02_dellapergola.pdf] Maybe if you read it we can talk about how it's unreliable.--Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 21:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A discussion based on reliable sources is not the same as a loose summary of the Arab-Israeli conflict which makes an allegation based on the title of this entry. Tewfik^Talk 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm disappointed a user with heavy involvement in this sort of subjects has come here to talk about my outlandish claims. Would you be so kind of pointing me to where I can get mediation from a neutral third party? Thanks in advance Tewfik. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 21:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I also encourage you to review Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Attribution. For the record, I said nothing of "outlandish claims"; the problem is that you've produced a summary of the Arab-Israeli conflict with no direct connection to this page's topic. Tewfik^Talk 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to my loyal opponents to provide me with trusthworthy sources so I can write the section that has caused such a stir. If you don't do so, I will just keep rephrasing the paragraph until you become so annoyed that you actually have to do something rational about it. --Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 06:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your source doesn't mention "settler colonialism". This has been explained before. Please stop engaging in original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Settler colonialism in Latin-America

This section needs some reworking. Two points: 1) It is focused entirely on Mexico. 2) The voice it is written in, especially the last paragraph, feels biased. It seems to be speaking in a rather nationalist/leftist/populist voice, and when talking about the various 'privileged' immigrant groups takes on a nativist tone as well. Such claims may actually be true, but the way they are stated here has no place in a encyclopedia article. I added a Citation Needed at the end of that paragraph.--KobaVanDerLubbe 00:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

As a reminder, this article falls under the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles and can be subject to editing restrictions. As such, I am reminding all parties that if there is a dispute at the article, that is essential that things be discussed at the talkpage. Don't just battle it out in edit summaries. Thanks, Elonka 14:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

SA relationship

This article is about settler colonialism - not about South Africa's or Israel's nuclear programs, or international relations. Please include only material related to settler colonialism - other stuff is irrelevant, and will be removed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

re [5]:

I concur with Canadian Monkey. Writing of colonies or heavily-colonised West Bank is a foregone conclusion, while adding South Africa's UN support for the establishment of Israel and the nuclear collaboration is not pertinent to the article's subject at all. --tickle me 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The U.S.S.R. and the United States also supported the establishment of the State of Israel, and Israel's nuclear program is no more relevant to this page than that of the U.S.S.R. or China. By the way, this page is woefully inadequate in the latter regard, missing entirely a section on Tibet. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Tibet, but the fact that the only country in a continent where most of the population suffered rather than profited from colonies to support the state's formation was a supremacist state is pertinent.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For starters, you are simply wrong. South Africa was not the only African country to vote for partition and recognize Israel, Liberia did so as well. As you well know’ Liberia was formed by freed slaves, surely that would be worth mentioning as well, if we followed you example? Secondly, you may not be aware, but at the time of the vote, only 4 African countries were UN members. Of these four, 2 supported, one abstained, and one, Egypt, a belligerent in the ensuing conflict who flaunted the UN decision and international law by invading Israel, voted against. Would it seem appropriate to you if, instead of the sentence you want introduced, we’d write something along the lines of “The only African nation to oppose the establishment of Israel was Egypt, a Monarchy under the control of the United Kingdom, who subsequently invaded Israel in violation of International law?”

None of this matters, though. This article is about settler colonialism, and the only material that is relevant to it is that which directly addresses the topic. You are welcome to believe what you like regarding the relationship, but please keep your POV out of this article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion to improve the tone of the discussions here, could I ask everyone to focus on discussing the article, and not other editors? Often the simple action of removing the words "you" and "your" from a post, forcing everything to be written in the third person, can have an excellent calming effect. Thanks, Elonka 04:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going on what's cited, I didn't introduce the references. If you're going to make reference to POV, you should back it up.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did - it is POV to cherry pick one example (SA) over others (Liberia), in order to advance an otherwise unsupported view (that SA supported Israel because it was an Apartheid government). Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was enlarging on material already in the text. I made no mention of Israel's flirtations with apartheid.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that's false. In this edit, you are the one who introduced the descriptor 'apartheid-era' into the discussion, but that is beside the point. It does not matter who introduced irrelevant content - if it is irrelvant, it does not belong. Israel's cooperation with SA on nuclear development is not relevant to this article, as numeroues editors have told you. Please don't re-introduce that material. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was describing apartheid-era South Africa, to distinguish it from the modern regime. I didn't refer at all to Israel's apartheid.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So first of all, you were wrong to do this. The 'apartheid era' began after the National Party took over in SA, in 1948. Second, since we're talking about a vote that took place in 1947, it's obvious we're not talking about modern SA, and there's no need for that "distinction". Finally, you added irrelevant material about nuclear cooperation. Please don't re-introduce that material. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

The following paragraph is found in the article:

This allegations are placed in a scholarly framework in the light that within the foundations of [settler] cultural nationalism, we can identify one vector of difference (the difference between colonizing subject and colonized subject: settler-Indigene) "being replaced by another in a strategic disavowal of the colonizing act". The national is what replaces the indigenous and in doing so conceals its participation in colonization by nominating a new colonized subject - the colonizer or invader-settler" (Lawson 1995).

Could someone please explain what the first sentence is supposed to mean, and also explain which parts of the paragraph are quotations from a source and which are not? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it, since it's unclear who or what is being quoted, and the paragraph itself makes no sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"without much opposition"

Lapsed Pacifist has inserted the phrase "without much opposition" to the statement "Several scholars have argued, without much opposition, that...". I'm trying to assume good faith here, so perhaps he can tell me the source for this claim. Who says they made this argument "without much opposition"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any opposition, so perhaps we can amend it to "without any discernible opposition" if you feel that's more suitable. Are you aware of any scholars arguing the converse?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your claim that they argued "without much opposition". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question, and comment on my suggestion.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article content is governed by its main content policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. In line with WP:V and WP:NOR, please provide a source for your claim that the scholars argued "without much opposition". Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it that's a no, then?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your claim that they argued "without any discernible opposition". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Convoluted, repetitive, but a definite no, right?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a sourced based encyclopedia. Please provide reliable sources for your claim that they argued "without any discernible opposition". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, if your basis for inserting "without much opposition", "without any discernible opposition" or similar phrases into the article is that you haven't been able to find any opposition, then those phrases are by definition original research and cannot be in the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claim moved to talk.

I've moved the following unsourced claim to the Talk: page:

Such opinions have also been echoed in the diplomatic world, particularly in the non-aligned movement.

It looks like original research to me. Could someone please bring a source making this specific claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in the article was it?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, then it doesn't really matter, does it? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If it can be sourced, then yes, it does.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But it's currently unsourced, so it doesn't belong. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to know where in the article it was, so I can have some idea of what we're talking about.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Should I take your silence for refusal?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't answer my question, and here's another; why would I have a source for a claim the only part of which I've seen is your excerpt above?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You've reverted it into the article, so one would imagine you've seen it before, in context; or are you simply admitting to blind reverts at this point? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of sentences on Wikipedia, I don't remember them all though. Can't you just tell me where in the article you saw it? How hard is that?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's as easy for you to ascertain this as me. Review the edit in which you inserted this material. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem, Jay. I've edited the article about seven times. I don't know which edit you're talking about, and I'm not sure you do either.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

British settlers in Ireland?

I think something is missing from this article...something quite important like... Plantations of Ireland...Plantation of Ulster.... It could also be added that tens of thousands of Irish were settled in the Caribbean and elsewhere as indentured servants by the British following the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, while their lands in Ireland were given to more British settlers. But perhaps the idea of white Europeans engaging in settler-colonial for centuries in another white European country is a bit too much too handle? History is not always comfortable but have no fear: to the British the irrational popish backward drunken Irish were not truly white; indeed they were more like apes, according to the most prevalent British stereotypes. Have a look at these historical portrayals of the Irish people as apes and drunks and much, much more. The Irish may be the second richest population in the EU in 2008,but that does not negate the enormous role of British settler-colonialism in Ireland's history bringing with it all the racism and sectarianism that marked colonial policy in other settler-colonies. You cannot whitewash this (clearly uncomfortable) European history of settler-colonial from this article. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Jews = indigenous

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By definition, Jews in Palestine cannot be settlers, because they are the indigenous. It is the Arabs who are the settlers in Palestine, because they are indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula. "Palestinian nation" = Jews. --217.132.188.8 (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC) You're ignoring the facts that many of the ancestors of modern Jews were converts to Judaism who lived outside what you could call the historic province of Palestine and that many ancestors of modern Arabs were adoptees of Arab culture who had no connection to the Arabian Peninsula. Those ancestors include Jews and Christians whose families had lived in the province of Palestine for centuries. It wasn't until the rise of Arab nationalism in the nineteenth century that many native speakers of Arabic actually started self-identifying as Arabs.     ←   ZScarpia   19:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Converts to Judaism are Jews just the same. Being Jewish isn't a solely genetic affair. It would be if "Born to a Jewish mother" were the only criterion, but owing to the other criterion, "Having undergone halachic conversion", Jewish ethnicity is a racially open one. Jews, whether biological or converted, and no matter where they are born, are the indigenous Palestinians. --217.132.112.112 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Are you sure you know what the word indigenous means? And have you reflected that, unless there was a land bridge across what is now the Straits of Gibraltar when homo sapiens migrated out of Africa (or unless they were keen boaters), ancestors of most of human kind must have passed through or near the area in question?     ←   ZScarpia   13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Nice job spouting off Islamist and neo-Nazi propaganda, ZScarpia. The truth is that the vast majority of Jews are descendants of the ancient Israelites and are thus indigenous to Israel, and that the so-called "Palestinian" Arabs are colonists from the Arabian peninsula and Jordan. Jews cannot colonize their own homeland, so re-settling in the West Bank is not colonization; it is the reversal of Arab colonization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedomFighterIrgun (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Well said. The racists posting as anti-racists should also note that genetics are of little importance in establishing nationhood and indigeneity; culture is a far stronger factor. For proof, consider that the modern-day Egyptians have the genes of the ancient ones but no real connection to them, being Arabs in all facets of their culture, except for the Copts, who still use a descendant of the original Egyptian language in their liturgy. In like manner, Arab colonists in Palestine who may be descended from Jews or Canaanite are not Jewish or Canaanite in any meaningful way, as their culture is wholly Arabic. Only the Jewish nation has a uniquely Palestinian culture. --85.65.54.105 (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Israel

I have removed that section because it's nothing but POV WP:OR unsupported by reliable sources. Most of the Jews who immigrated to Israel/Palestine were either refugees or Socialists - please use WP:RS to prove that is was "Settler colonialism" - and indeed, up to 1977 the Israeli politics was dominated by the left. The Palestinian Arabs left as a result of a 1948 Arab-Israeli War, instigated by Arabs - again, hardly "Settler colonialism". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The colonizing workforce is a tool in the colonization effort of the colonizing authority. Their identity or background is not as important as their willingness to do the WORK of colonization while submitting to the colonizing authority. Also, the cause of depopulation is not particularly relevant. New England was depopulated by smallpox, not significantly different from a war precipitated by neither of the resident parties. The bottom line is that the colonizing authority oversaw the immigration of settlers who consented, however temporarily, to government by that authority, colonization led (by whatever means) to depopulation, and the settlers took over the land left vacant by the previous (we'll avoid the word original, for good reason) residents. 75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Exploitation colonialism

Hi, I think it's very important to write a complementary article to this page: exploitation colonialism 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say such a subtopic WOULD merit merging (I argued against merging this article below). Exploitation colonialism is traditional colonialism, the rectangle to settlement colonialism's square. 75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OR again

I've removed this section to Talk:

While Israeli settlements aren't widely regarded as being an effort to "colonise" the territories which they occupy, there are allegations of that practice, involving the contentious nature of such settlements. It is worth noting that a number of international bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and many legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law, but other legal scholars, Israel, and the Anti-Defamation League disagree with this assessment. Opponents to the policy of Israeli settlements have characterized said efforts as being colonialism even though the validity of either Israeli or Palestinian claims is a matter of an ensuing controversy.

Not only is most of the paragraph not about "settler colonialism", but the sole source used, Nasser al-Qidwa, is a former Palestinian Foreign Minister making a political speech - hardly a reliable source for this kind of claim. In addition, editorial comments like "it is worth noting" are un-encyclopedic. Please make sure your sources are reliable, and please ensure that your text matches those sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I used reliable sources extensively, consulted scholarly sources, framed the paragraph appropriately, added citations when needed, and quoted opinions and analysis hence not presenting them as facts. I believe that now the case has been *finally* settled. Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 04:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

=

I fail to see the point of this section. See colony.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me try again: there is a dispute as to whether or not the Israeli settlements are in fact colonies. The sentence you are adding presents one side of the dispute, according to one scholar. Since there is a dispute, we can't begin that sentence with something ("the Israeli colonies are...".) that presents the desired outcome according to that side of the dispute ("they are colonies") as a forgone conclusion. Please read Begging the question if you still don't understand. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And once again, I refer you to the Wikipedia article colony, complete with definition. Where are the scholars that argue the Israeli colonies are simply settlements?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I understand the definition of colony. Now, there's a dispute as to whether or not this definition applies to the Israeli settlements, and not everyone agrees that it does (If this were not the case, then instead of saying "some scholars argue that..." we'd write "All scholars agree that.. " or "the consensus among political scientists is..." - and back that up with a reliable source). When a dispute exists, we can't describe them as settlements when introducing the dispute, as that is Begging the question. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask you again; what scholars assert that the Israeli colonies are not colonies?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on whoever makes an assertion, it is not up to the other party to disprove the statement. If you want to assert as fact that the Israeli settlements are "settler colonies", or to claim that this is the scholarly consensus, you need to support that with a reliable source. A good starting point would be to source it to someone a little more prominent than the current obscure scholar who is being used to make a somewhat convoluted argument which does not even directly say the settlements are colonies. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A colony is a colony. Its characteristics define it. If the colonists prefer to call their colonies settlements, that's entirely up to them, but it doesn't change what they are.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

we call them settlements because that is the most common terminology used by reliable sources. Please don't change this to 'colonies", not here, and not on other articles , as you've been doing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Israelis living in the settlements don't call them settlements. The Wikipedia and common term is Israeli settlement. If you prefer, we can use the more neutral and descriptive term "Israeli town". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing what their inhabitants call them, nor the Wikipedia term, nor the common term. I'm not insisting they can't be called settlements anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm insisting on the right to, on occasion, describe a colony as a colony. How "town" is more neutral than "settlement" escapes me. What neither of you have explained is why you find the term "colony" so objectionable, when it so accurately describes the "settlements" in question.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review begging the question and WP:NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. So what's the problem?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, individual 'settlements' have not been academically equivalent to 'colonies' since the Hellenic age. Greek foreign settlements were called colonies because the 'polity' at the time was widely understood to be a single city with its surrounding farm- and pastureland. Since polities have grown to be defined by the geographical limits of their ability to project power over territory, usually including multiple 'settlements' or cities and towns, the difference between 'settlement' and 'colony' would be the exact corrolate of 'town' and 'state' (regardless of whether that state is a nation-state or a member-state like Alabama or Guadalajara). 75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Original research - Russian and Polish Jews

I've moved the following original research to Talk:

• Jewish diaspora, particularly Russia and Poland (Israel, see Aliyah) New Aliyah - Modern Zionist Aliyot (1882 - 1948). The Jewish Agency for Israel, Department for Jewish Zionist Education.

As is painfully obvious, the source says nothing about colonialism, much less "settler colonialism". Please find sources that are actually on the topic of the article, which is Settler colonialism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your insistence is unreasonable. It is a bit as if you are insisting in a trial that the testimony of a witness who says that a suspect went out to get groceries shortly before a crime occurred cannot be admitted because the witness does not claim that the suspect committed the crime. There is a separate matter in this article concerning whether or not the effort to found the State of Israel was an instance of settler colonialism, but the simple fact of where the people who undertook that effort came from is independent of that matter. I'll give you a while to respond before I restore the text. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not restore the text without reliable sources that say this is a case of settler colonialism. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR and WP:V, and make sure that all sources used in the article refer directly to settler colonialism. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll review the articles you note, but, pending that review, I think your comments are unresponsive. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The "articles I note" are Wikipedia policy. Your comments weren't relevant to that. Find sources that refer directly to "settler colonialism", which is, of course, the topic of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The distinction, I believe, is between migration and colonialism. Jews settled in Eastern Europe as in all of Europe through migratory settlement, however nowhere, except on their return to present-day Israel, did they engage in 'colonization.' Or is your real point something to do with the fact that, although the colonizing authority in Israel was the British Empire, the 'colonizing workforce' was made up primarily of Jewish Poles and Russians? Stated thus, it might be worth mentioning in the article, as an example of a variation on what could be termed 'normal' settler colonialism, but it does not detract from the fact that present-day Israel is the result of settler colonialism (which assertion I'm again not clear if you're trying to support or refute). 75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Several scholars"

The following unsourced claim has been in the article for a while:

Several scholars have argued that Israeli settlements in territories occupied since the Six-Day War, especially those which are hotly disputed, are instances of settler colonialism.

Aside from the obvious weasel words, can anyone provide a source for this claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of scholars that approach the subject of Israeli settlement within the context of settler colonialism. This is noted in Clive Jones and Emma Murphy's book, Israel: Challenges to Identity, Democracy and the State, where the works of Richard P. Stevens ("Israel and South Africa: A Comparative Study in Racism and Settler Colonialism"), Samih Farsoun ("Settler Colonialism and Herrenvolk Democracy"), and George Jabbour ("Settler Colonialism in South Africa and the Middle East") are among those cited as sharing in this position.

Nigel Craig Parsons in The Politics of the Palestinian Authority also writes that

The nature of Israel as a settler-colonial state has been forcefully demonstrated by Rodinson [i.e. Maxime Rodinson) who cites a useful definition: "One can speak of colonization when there is, occupation with domination; when there is, and by the very fact that there is, emigration with legislation." The Jews attracted to Zionism emigrated to Palestine, and then they dominated it. They occupied it in deed and then adopted legislation to justify this occupation by law.

In other words, there is no shortage of scholars who share in this opinion. The only problem with the sentence as currently formulated is that it artifically limits this analysis to only those territories occupied in 1967, when many of the scholars who share in this viewpoint extend it to the territories occupied in 1948 as well. 82.102.241.12 (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no shortage of Marxist "scholars" with an anti-Zionist ax to grind. Those are tainted sources, therefore illegitimate. The clearest proof that Israel is no settler-colonialism is in the fact that it is the motherland to which Jews have always looked to return to, whereas in settler-colonialism one leaves the motherland to establish life abroad. No matter what the anti-Zionist curs say, the Diaspora is not the motherland of any Jew, even if a sojourn of nearly 2000 has been forced upon the Jewish people. Jews are tied to the Land of Israel in the same way Greeks are tied to Hellas. --85.65.54.105 (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Jews are tied to Israel, actually, in the way that Greeks are tied to Macedonia. That is to say, legitimately. The legitimacy of their patrimony, however, is immaterial to their engagement in settlement colonialism on behalf of Great Britain before and after the Balfour Declaration. See "Bible and Sword," Barbara Tuchman. The only possible edit to that with a degree of legitimacy (but highly questionable value) would be to call it 're'-settlement colonialism. It factually obeys the patterns and deffiniton of the term, end of story.

As for Marxist scholars, dry your eyes. Karl Marx was a TERRIBLE political scientist, as are most scholars who engage in writings on fields they have no formal training for. He was however, a talented and UNIMPEACHABLE economist, who wrote the deffinitive analysis of the social construct called 'money.' Some Marxist scholars are morons and populists, just as some climate skeptics are. Others are responsible, important contributors to discourse who happen to use the SCIENCE written by a man who ALSO engaged in political activism. I get that this is an uncomfortable concept for persons whose politics dictate anti-rational devaluation of science in pursuit of ruthless personal values or goals, but for those willing to actually think, it should be no problem to use findings and discard (tested and clearly faulty) conclusions. 75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

POV

This article, unfortunately, is riddled with anti-settler POV. Keep in mind that even while there may be some merit to this point of view, and certainly the usually unfortunate fate of native populations should be covered in detail, Wikipedia should not be used for soapboxing. For instance, the following sentence:

"Mostly Europeans in origin, the settlers are those who traveled from European nation-states to comparatively underdeveloped territories with the aim of living there permanently, displacing the indigenous population and imposing social structures of their own making."

I find it hard to believe that the individual settlers who travelled from Europe had the displacement and subjugation of native peoples as their goal.[[[[This is, unfortunately, supportable. See Antonio da Silva Rego, Documentos Sobre os Portugueses em Mocambique e na Africa Central, 1497-1840 for examples of letters from individual settlers that expressly state this goal75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)]]]] This may have been the goal of some of the political leaders responsible for the colonisation programmes at the time (although certainly not all) [[[[and actually you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of leaders who did NOT have this goal75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)]]]], but most of the settlers themselves had more mundane reasons for emigration, such as escaping from persecution or taking advantage of opportunities in colonies that didn't exist for them for one reason or other in the "mother country".

"Perhaps the most clear example of this difference is the British Empire, whose white population settled mainly North America and Oceania, exterminating in the process the native population" [[[[you are not wrong, however, in objecting to the bias of the word "exterminating," here75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)]]]]

Again, while there were pogroms and the like, the native persons of North America and Oceania have not been "exterminated" (see groups like Maori or Samoan, for instance). This wording makes it sound like the express purpose of settler colonialism was genocide, which is a claim that is not supported by contemporary documentation in this article. [[[[how about any relaible book on the Indian Removal Act of 1830? Its not my area of expertise, so I don't have it off the top of my head75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)]]]]

"Racism often pervaded the settlers of new territories"

Unsourced, and uses the weasel word 'often'. [[[[I can source this. Use da Silva Rego and George Theal, Records of South East Africa. 'Often,' in this case, means at least one, easily distinguishable, racist statement, from EVERY SINGLE SOURCE whose writings appear in Theal's translations. This is so blatant that the weaseling is in minimizing the communicative value of the word 'often.' Portuguese sources, for instance, universally refer to marital sex among non-Europeans as the husband 'using' his wife (or wives). Some other examples: "They make use of the same evil customs abovesaid when anyone dies, to drive away the infection from the family, which being such as they are I will not mention." - Letter from Andre Fernandes to the Jesuits of Portgal; or: "They are so wrapped up in their own customs and the pleasures of the flesh, that they know nothing of the soul, which they cannot see...Lastly they are thieves, with neither faith nor truth, and therefore they will not trust even their own children." Father Francisco Monclaro, "Account..."; again: "When Quiteve dies his chief wives are obliged to die also, in order to serve and dwell with him in the next world, which is another of their barbarities. In fulfilment of this inhuman law..." Joao dos Santos, Ethiopia Oriental (it is not even clear that this account is TRUE, as dos Santos is the only one who mentions it. Regardless, the language clearly shows bias); more dos Santos: "Some of the Kaffirs also weed, dig, and assist their wives, but the are very few, for they are all indolent and lovers of idleness, given to feasting, singing, and dancing, therefore they are poor..." Ethiopia Oriental; and again: Some of the Kaffir women in these lands are as wild as savage beasts or sylvan animals, as they show clearly in their childbearing, for many of them when they begin to feel the pains of travail withdraw into the woods, and roam about there breathing in the perfume of the forests, so that they are more speedily delivered, as if they were she-goats..." Ethiopia Oriental. I could go on...75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)]]]]

(about Mexico) "After that, it resulted in a dominant party system, in which a single political party controlled all affairs in a ruthless and irresponsible manner for 70 years."

You would be hard pressed to argue that the word "irresponsible" is not POV and/or OR here. [[[[this objection, again, is valid75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)]]]]

In addition, the list of European Diasporas seems to be rather arbitary. Taking, for instance, the case of Côte d'Ivoire, which seems to imply that there is a significant French settler population within the country. I would argue that this is not the case, as a mere 4% of the population of the country is of a non-African background, and of that, according to Demographics of Côte d'Ivoire, there are most probably at most 50,000 French, with a significant remainder of the 4% being made up of Lebanese and Vietnamese persons; countries and groups that were not noted for being involved in settler colonialism. The intent of this seems to be to make settler colonialism appear more widespread than it actually was.

I intend to attempt cleaning up and NPOV-ing this article over the next few days, but I'm well aware that this will likely be a controversial process, so I am posting here first to let everyone know my intent. I am happy to discuss any edit I make, and to reintroduce anything I remove if a reliable source can be produced to support it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC).

I am extremely curious about YOUR POV. I am a Russian-Jewish/Italian/Mexican American, with a Master's Degree in African history, in case you wondered the same.75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

colonializations under way

South Korean settlers in Queens & Long Island, NY, as well as San Diego, CA, have gotten my attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markmark12 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

pakistani's in yorkshire have mine 78.144.77.195 (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're both confusing settler colonialism with immigration. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think your confusing immigration with settler colonialism. Immigration implies a level of assimilation/integration. Allowing oneself to be absorbed by the host country you have migrated to. This is certainly not the case with immigrants in the multicultural age. Like colonial settlers, modern immigrants seek to retain their own cultures and identities, and impose their own social order on their host countries. Sharia law in Britain for example. Also like colonial settlers, modern immigrants to Europe want the indigenous population to vanish as they gradually replace them.--24.179.209.239 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Like colonial settlers, modern immigrants seek to retain their own cultures and identities, and impose their own social order on their host countries. Sharia law in Britain for example." Ah yes, good point, I remember when they introduced Sharia Law in Britain, it was all over the papers. I haven't actually been legally allowed to speak English since that fateful day so it's nice to be able to write in my native language on the internet. I'll never forget the day either when it turned out our Prime Minister was actually a reanimated terrorist ruling the country (David Cameron being Osama bin Laden, spelled backwards, as I'm sure you're aware). Thanks for the great comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.54.19 (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"some scholars and human rights groups ..."

This blog post by one A. Jay Adler, an editor of poetry in a college magazine, and this interview with an actually reliable source who doesnt, as far as I can tell, objected to the characterization of Israel as a colonial project, is being used to "answer" the quotes from others who do consider the Zionist project in Israel to be an example of settler colonialism. Im sure actual scholarly sources can be used, but until they are brought I am removing the latest addition. Im also removing the well-poisoning first sentence of the section as being SYNTH. nableezy - 01:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to replace those sources with better ones, as they were mostly just placeholders. I will get on that tomorrow. In the meantime, I made some corrections to the article.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Who is it that has said "Despite genetic[7][8][9][10], archaeological[11][12][13], cultural[14], and historical consensus placing Jewish origins in ancient Palestine..." in relation to the matter of settler colonialism ? It can't be you because that would be WP:SYN policy violation, so who is it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What Sean said. That entire line is original research and will be removed. The tone is also one of that of somebody attempting to denigrate the views of the people that follow the original research. nableezy - 15:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how my additions constitute original research, especially considering the article already has an arguably non-neutral slant (as per the messages in the intro). The sources are there (I can provide more, if it is needed), they are reliable and all of them arrive at the same conclusions that sentence does (i.e. Jewish origins in Palestine). Either way, when it comes to controversial topics like this, it is best to present the full picture. That is, all sides of the argument, not just those that agree with the idea that Israel is a colonial state. This is especially pertinent when there is widely accepted and relevant information that contradicts many of the arguments presented. This is an encyclopedia, not an echo chamber.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It constitutes original research because it is you rather than a secondary source who has synthesized the connection between the issues. This is like me adding something about the fact that despite the complete lack of evidence to justify the belief system of any of the Abrahamic religions in any way, shape, or form, billions of people subscribe to them. I cannot tell you how much I would like to do that. I don't because a) it would be synthesis intended to push an agenda and b) my personal views on the matter conflict with the objectives of a neutral encyclopedia, so I stay away from the issues. Are you sure you can't find secondary sources that challenge the notion of it being settler colonialism on the same basis as you ? I would be surprised if you can't. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the edit constitutes WP:OR, and have removed it.--Ubikwit (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ubikwit, you accused me of POV pushing, when you did the exact same thing (such as calling these people "authoritative").

And Sean, I will remove the sentence entirely and start searching for secondary sources.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, authoritative in that context simply means reliable sources in Wiki parlance.

I had intended to remove the term "significant" however, as that would seem to represent a subjective evaluation, but since you removed the sentence, that's no longer necessary.--Ubikwit (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Authoritative is itself a rather subjective term, hence the removal. In any case, this entire article would seem to need a complete overhaul. It's a mess.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the article. Be specific here on the Talk page regarding the points you find problematic, before attempting any controversial editing.--Ubikwit (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The issue has already been addressed here, and your editing is clearly disruptive.

There are a preponderance of sources cited here n the Talk page in addition to those actually described in the article, and no sources describing counterclaims.

Clear "many" is the correct characterization of the state of affairs.

I'm asking you one last time to self-revert your edit.

It has been noted that Moxy has called into question your competence level, in a post to your Talk page here which you deleted two minutes after it was posted.

I'm beginning to think that in light of your other activities that you are simply attempting to provoke me with your innane and disrutive editing.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Your edits constitute POV pushing. Period. Some is an objective term, many is not, unless there was a wide consensus on the issue (which there is not).

And please, stop going through my talk page history and other editors posts there against me, or I will report you. What you are doing constitutes WP:Canvassing, and is against the rules.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been redressed by three editors on this page for your attempt to deprecate the statements represented in the sources by inserting an prefacing sentence which is neither WP:NPOV nor sourced. I'm not going to repeat my comment to you above. Are you threatening an edit war by refusing to abide by consensus? WP:EW.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

No, I am pointing out the fact that you edit warring and are currently on your third revert. In any case...

"Some commentators consider the State of Israel to be an example of settler colonialism."

That's not POV pushing. I'd also like to add that you are the only editor on this page who has openly objected to that line. But this, on the other hand....

"A significant number of authoritative commentators consider the State of Israel to be a colonial presence."

And....

"Many academics and public officials have described Israel to be an example of settler colonialism."

Those are both your diffs, which violate WP:NPOV guidelines. If you cannot see the difference, then I don't know what to say. You are not being reasonable, and seem to be motivated more by strong political POV than improving the quality of the article.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that I was wrong about you breaking the 3RR rule. My mistake.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Not only were you wrong about that, but my reversion simply removed the prefacing statement.

In my previous comment to you I detailed the rational for my introduction of the section, and that rational does not represent a non-neutral point of view with respect to the sources. Nonetheless, as the section can stand on its on without the prefacing statement that you seem to find so objectionable, I simply left it out, which was the consensus after other editors reverted your previous sentence.

You seem to fail to grasp the significance of what nableezy said, "The tone is also one of that of somebody attempting to denigrate the views of the people that follow". The "people that follow" are reliable sources, and your prefacing statement amounts to an attempt to deprecate the import of what the sources say before the reader reads them.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Source

I want to add this paragraph.

"However, some scholars are critical of the consideration of Israel as a colonial state. Michael Anbar Ph.D. in his book 'Israel and its Future: Analysis and Suggestions' argues that there is "nothing in common between historic colonialism, or even neocolonialism" and the State of Israel. His argument is partially predicated on the idea that the Jews of antiquity were themselves victims of colonialism and displacement from their lands, and that "the Zionist ideology advocates the return of Jews to the land of their ancestors from which they were exiled by brutal military conquests". He further argues that "they did not plunder their own land for the benefit of any foreign colonial power" and "they did not impose Judaism on the local Arab population". He does, however, acknowledge similarites between Zionism and the Pilgrims of the 15th century, but concludes that "even they had no historical claims to the land they made their new home"."

The quotes on that page were lifted directly from the book itself, which can be found here (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Israel+and+its+Future+Michael+Anbar&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AIsrael+and+its+Future+Michael+Anbar&ajr=0). You can also find criticism of the analogy here, here, and here.

Evildoer187 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Published by iUniverse, a self-publishing company. Why would you think it appropriate to cite Michael Anbar on this page? Who is Michael Anbar? nableezy - 07:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

He provided other sources.Including scholarly articles.Btw does Pluto press is scholarly publishing house?Also why opinion of some ambassador is important?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Pluto isnt a self-publishing press, so the comparison is rather silly, but I havent said that Veracini should be cited, now have I? I wouldnt have a problem citing Bareli or Golan. nableezy - 08:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Amazon page...."Dr. Michael Anbar, Professor Emeritus, University at Buffalo, is a graduate of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. He did his PhD work at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovoth. Before coming to the US he was Professor in the Feinberg Graduate School and Director, Chemistry Division, Soreq Nuclear Research Institute, Yavne." In other words, a scholar. However, it seems that you are right about iUniverse. The other sources appear to be fine.

I will write up a new paragraph later, and post it here. Evildoer187 (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a quick preview. It is unfinished, but I will build on it later.

"However, a number of scholars and historians have criticized the idea that Zionism, and the State of Israel, are tantamount to settler colonialism. Avi Bareli, in his essay 'Forgetting Europe: Perspectives on the Debate about Zionism and Colonialism', argues that the "Colonialist School offered this alternative interpretation to replace the account of the return of the Jewish people to its land". Moreover, he asserts that it "ignores the economic, social, and cultural processes that spurred the Jews in Eastern Europe to emigrate to Palestine over decades in the twentieth century". Others such as Arnon Golan, Michael J. Cohen, and Bernard Avishai have also attacked post-colonial criticism of Israel."

Evildoer187 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You can expand what they are really say are it is scholarly source it probably don't need attribution.If you need access to any scholarly source behind pay wall you may ask at WP:RX--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will check it out.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Unclear sources, need paraphrasing of content, not unsupported generalization

What does the phrase "post-colonial criticism of Israel" mean? I think that you need to cite some quotes or paraphrase some passages from the sources you cite in a manner such as not to simply present a mere list of many sources of which the specific content is not described. See WP:V. --Ubikwit (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Greetings

I stumbled across these current discussions by some accident; or good fortune perhaps. I did mention to EvilD that a third opinion, if all agreed to honor can work, or an RfC. Ubikwit introduced himself to me and I gave him advice that is valid for each of you. So give yourselves the time and opportunity to get the best from your efforts. I'm a little busy right now, but I will be checking back, Good luck. --My76Strat (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of official UN source

@Shrike. Please state your reasoning for removal of the statement that would appear to be a reliable source published on an official UN webpage and of considerable notability. The ambassador and former permanent representative to the UN of Malaysia was speaking on behalf of the entire NAM, I believe.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Please prove that is "considerable notability".The reprint of this speech is WP:primary source we shouldn't include it unless some news outlet or scholarly source considered it notable.Please see [[WP:RS] and WP:UNDUE--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that your understanding of "primary source" is somewhat inaccurate. The source in question here does not represent

original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on

Examples of primary source in this case would be a statement by a Palestinian Authority official or an Israeli official or a citizen of either group that is involved.

The source in question is a speech by an official of Malaysia acting as a representative of the international body the Non-aligned Movement to the United Nations. He is speaking to the United Nations about the situation in the Middle East and Palestine as an expert and in the capacity of representative of the NAM.

I mentioned notability with respect to the coverage of the topic by two international organizations, i.e., the UN and NAM. In that respect this source may be the most notable source cited.

This topic has been addressed in a critical manner as a reaction to the description by scholars of the Zionist settler colonialism, not the other way around. Sources describing the phenomena are what the sources criticizing that description depend on insofar as they respond to that criticism. Furthermore, this is an ongoing issue, so statements such as those by the UN and NAM are important sources because they represent the majority, international viewpoint, which deserves greater weight.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Again printed on UN site doesn't assert any notability as it not secondary source.Who decided that this important in the contexts of "settler colianialism"?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at the source? Please do not make positivistic assertions unless you have a high degree of certainty of the truth of what you are saying.

Again, you seem to misunderstand what a secondary source is

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

In this case, to my understanding, the ambassador's speech is a secondary source, and the fact that is posted on the UN website makes it a reliable third party source.

Here are passages from the source.

The Non-Aligned Movement expresses once again its grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. We condemn the continuing and escalating Israeli military campaign against the Palestinian people, in particular the willful killing of civilians, including extrajudicial executions; demolition of homes and paralyzing closures; excessive and indiscriminate use of force, and continuing settler colonial activities(my emphasis).new link to article

It is clear that Israel’s settler colonialism activities(my emphasis) impact gravely on the Palestinian people. This policy cannot remain unchallenged by the international community.

The Israeli Government and others must surely realise that settler colonialism has become the primary obstacle to Palestinian self-determination.

The world cannot afford to allow Israel to boldly press on with its settler colonialism(my emphasis) activities, more imperatively its ongoing and future construction of the expansionist wall. Israel must be prevented from using security as a guise to annex Palestinian territory.

Are you familiar with the Non-Aligned Movement? There are 120 countries that belong to it, so the speech represents the view of those countries, which I believe makes it notable.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I have asked involvement of other editors at WP:RSN--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The webpage Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the UN on which the webpage to which the article has been posted NAM Statements By Malaysiais not a "personal page", and I can't see where you would get that idea. --Ubikwit (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

As per this reply on the RSN page, I would like to repost material from this source sampled from among the quotes that I've posted on the Talk page. Shrike, if you have any objection to that, please state it below.Ubikwit (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Shrike, I gather that your deletion of the comment you had left refusing to recognize Sean's comment on RSN means that you acknowledge the reliability of the source and are in consensus that I repost material from that source. Please affirm.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit

I like to wait till conversation will be archived.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger into Settler

Considering that virtually all settlers are engaged in "settler colonialism", I think this article represents the verb form of Settler and is essentially an example of content forking. This is also suggested by the absence of links to Settler and other articles. Grant | Talk 08:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not even a majority of "all settlers are engaged in 'settler colonialism.'" 'Settlement,' the verb form you are referring to, is something that takes place in many historical contexts and often includes human migration into previously (human) unoccupied areas. Alternatively, settlers may move into an area and subsequently be either subsumed within the society of which they are the immigrant minority, or assimilate the resident society to what eventually becomes their majority, neither of which fall under the specific definition of settler COLONIALISM. Feel free to consult "An African Classical Age" by Christopher Ehret for examples of how both of the latter series of events took place on various occasions in the process of the so-called 'Bantu Migration,' an example of settlement that does not involve Europeans at all, and so is free of the biases and (justifiable) defensiveness that rise out of discussions of European colonization. Ehret shows how the language record includes numerous instances of language groups (which can reliably be equated with ethnic differences) disappearing from whole regions without evidence of migration to any other place, leaving remnant words or sound changes to show that the speakers were assimilated, and also shows migrations that contribute words or sound shifts to the destination region's languages but do not come to dominate the speech of that area. (Europeans, btw, are by no means the only settlers in world history, and are not even the only societies to engage in settlement colonialism. Han and Arabs are well known for it, for instance.) 75.79.183.115 (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Opposed to merger.--Ubikwit (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
• Oppose - per 75.79.183.115. Dlv999 (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose — Settler colonialism is a concept with an active body of research and analysis associated with it. Unfortunately the article is not yet a coherent description of that concept, but there is no doubt in my mind that the article is needed. As in so much of Wikipedia, the Israeli-Palestinian partisan conflict sucks down much of the time and energy that should be devoted to collaboration. As time permits, I'll get hold of some of the basic monographs on settler colonialism and draw on those to expand the article. I will be delighted if another editor gets there before me. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of Arab settler colonialism?

This article is extremely biased. It makes no mention of how the Arabs settled and colonized the entire Middle East and North Africa. A good example of Arabian colonists are the "Palestinian people" who continue to oppress the indigenous Jews and have convinced the world with their propaganda that somehow the Jews are the colonists to their own homeland! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A5gjhd (talk • contribs) 07:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixy flyer (talk • contribs)

For essentially the same reason that every ancient and medieval empire is not listed as an example of "settler colonialism." Not every conquest or mass migration fits the pattern. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 20:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Colonies in Terra Nullius

The third and fifth sentences of the opening paragraph, with their emphasis on population replacement, are problematic vis-à-vis colonies established in regions or areas without an existing population to replace (i.e. terra nullius). Take, for instance, the Falkland Islands. Various European powers established colonies that fit the definition of a colony on these islands, and they could be regarded as settler colonies. But there definitely wasn't any native population to displace when they did so. Settler colonies, at a conceptual level, don't have to be established in already inhabited areas for them to be considered settler colonies.

While historically there haven't been too many settler colonies established in bona fide terra nullius, that's because of a lack of bona fide terra nullius. But there are nevertheless a few examples, mostly on remote islands such as Bermuda and Réunion. Even a few of the earliest English colonies of North America were established in locales which weren't "inhabited", though surrounding areas were (e.g. Jamestown, Virginia, founded on a swampy uninhabited island). A broader concept of colony, shorn of the concept of it being under the control of an existing state, also leads to other historic settlements in terra nullius being considered settler colonies, such as the Norse colonization of the North Atlantic islands and the Maori colonization of what is now New Zealand.

Indeed, the focus of the article of settler colonies being under the authority of an existing state (regardless of where the colonization takes place) is itself problematic with respect to some notable settler colonies of history, including that of the Plymouth Colony, whose founders sought to avoid the authority of the English state or any other to the largest extent possible and existed for a considerable period of time without a charter. There certainly wasn't much in the way of an "imperial power overseeing the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority" in either the imperial overseeing or settler consent, even temporarily. As far as the premise of this article is concerned, Plymouth Colony wasn't a settler colony, which is really an absurd proposition.

The article should also be broad enough to encompass the possibility of future settler colonies on other worlds, all of which, to our current knowledge, are terra nullius. But given the way the article is premised, such settler colonies wouldn't be settler colonies because they wouldn't be displacing anyone.

This article focuses exclusively on an important subset of settler colonies - those taking place under direct imperial oversight in already inhabited regions - while ignoring the fact that that subset IS a subset to the concept of a settler colony itself. Or to put it differently, this article regards settler colonies as an aspect of the narrower concept of colonialism rather than the broader concept of colonization. Perhaps the biggest problem with this article is that I got here by clicking on a link that said "Settler colony" only to get a page on "Settler colonialism"... D P J (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Was Harry Truman a zionist?

There seems to be some controversy over this material. It's clearly cited to a reliable source by John Judis in my opinion. If it's to be removed, which I don't think it should be, a quite compelling argument would need to be made.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

At this point, the removal of the content is akin to vandalism without a good argument for removing it. "I don't like what it says" isn't good enough. And that's that. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Rightie-Oh! It's better to have a section open on the talk page in case it continues.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for doing that. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The passage is an example of POV pushing. Harry Truman was as much a Zionist for supporting the creation of the State of Israel as Nelson Mandela was a Zionist for calling for two states and affirming Israel's right to continue occupying Arab cities and villages until Arab states recognize Israel within secure borders. The articles on Wikipedia are not blogs. Each must include scholarly sources and not be a vehicle for conjecture. Gilad55 (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

What does that have to do with the particular language in the article? No one is actually saying Truman was a Zionist, you know? There's an argument to be made that the sentence in there isn't supported by the source, there's an argument to be made that Truman's opinion is irrelevant, and so on, but you're not going to get very far arguing that a New Republic article by John Judis is not a reliable source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

John Judis is a journalist, not a scholar. The passage asserts an opinion as fact and cites Judis as a source. Judis offers an opinion and his article is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's standard. As I said, Wikipedia articles are not blogs. Gilad55 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

Truman was biblical literalist, and a high-level Freemason (Grand master of his lodge in Missouri), both of which are mentioned in connection with the topic of his unilateral recognition of the "Jewish State of Israel", short-circuiting the UN process that was already underway regarding the constitution of a political successor to the British Mandate. I don't recall anyone claiming that Truman was a Zionist himself, but he was friends with prominent Zionist and sympathetic with aspects of what he seems to have considered their plight. Here are some relevant reliable sources.

• Harry Truman, Chaim Weizmann, the Balfour declaration, etc:
• A Peace to End All Peace, 20th Anniversary Edition: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin
• Counsel to the President by Richard Holbrooke
• Friends in High Places: The Rise and Fall of Clark Clifford by Douglas Frantz and David McKean

The last two books on the list are about Clark Clifford, Trumans counsel. The WP page on him contains the following quote:

In his role as presidential advisor, perhaps his most significant contribution was his successful advocacy, along with David Niles, of prompt 1948 recognition of the new state of Israel, over the strong objections of Secretary of State, General George Marshall.

Clifford was Truman's closest adviser and directly involved in the consultation related to Truman's UN decision.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In searching for a source on Truman's biblical literalism, which I noticed is missing from his BLP, I just came across a NYT book review, which describes Truman as a Christian Zionist as well as a biblical literalist, of this book A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The actual material

Here it is:

However,these counter-arguments rely heavily on religious texts that claim that the people who identified as Jewish had exclusive rights to land they were not at the time living in and that was granted to them by a theistic God, something the American President Truman was profoundly concerned about when the state of Israel was founded. Truman rejected the idea of a religious state expressing fear that trying to establish one would lead to war.<ref>http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116215/was-harry-truman-zionist</ref>

Now, this part: However,these counter-arguments rely heavily on religious texts that claim that the people who identified as Jewish had exclusive rights to land they were not at the time living in and that was granted to them by a theistic God, something the American President Truman was profoundly concerned about when the state of Israel was founded. is dubious at best and synthesis at worst. Furthermore, it's not in the source cited. The second sentence, Truman rejected the idea of a religious state expressing fear that trying to establish one would lead to war., is in the source cited. I wonder, though, why it's relevant here. I think a case can be made, but I'm not sure how. Truman was instrumental in the founding of the state of Israel, but almost certainly didn't have much to say about "settler colonialism."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Collapse irrelevant material in hope of having an actual discussion

How is any of this information connected to Harry Truman being a Zionist? Perhaps this portion of the thread belongs in another page? Unclear of the relevance to the page topic of "Why there is no mention of Arab Settler Colonization." Chailomi18 (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Who said it was relevant to Harry Truman being a Zionist?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks I will rephrase my question. What is the relevance of Harry Truman being a Zionist (and any of the material to 'support it') about Why there is no mention of Arab Settler Colonization? Chailomi18 (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Oh, wait! You mean because the first section on this page is called "Why there is no mention of Arab Settler Colonization?" we shouldn't talk about other stuff here? No, there's one section per topic. If you want to talk about "Why there is no mention of Arab Settler Colonization?" you edit that section, and in this section we're talking about other stuff. And if there's stuff you want to talk about that doesn't have a section yet you can make a new section using the "new section" button at the top of the page. Is that what you meant?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Alf laylah wa laylah - correct the page is regarding Settler Colonialism. The thread regarding "Was Harry Truman a zionist?" seems completely out of context. Can you please provide the relevancy of it being here on this page. I see no connection to Settler Colonialism. Thank you Chailomi18 (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Because someone put that material in the article. So now we're discussing whether or not it should be in the article. The talk page is used to discuss what should or should not be in the article. If someone put "settlers from Mars invaded Tahiti in 1865 BC," we'd discuss that here too, even though it's probably not strongly related to settler colonialism.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC) I am glad you agree that this is just someone's opinion and it really doesn't belong on this page at all as it holds absolutely no relevancy to the Settler Colonization discussion. It's just an opinion which obviously would never replace actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chailomi18 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

First, the article is not relevant to the topic of the page, i.e. Settler Colonization. Secondly, the article is not a reliable, scholarly source and must be removed. Gilad55 (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Gilad55

alf laylah wa laylah, thanks for removing this information until the issue settles down. You're of course right that there's "an argument to be made that the sentence in there isn't supported by the source, [and] there's an argument to be made that Truman's opinion is irrelevant". But one cannot deny the fact that The New Republic article is indeed not relevant to the topic of the page, and it's obviously not a reliable, scholarly source as the above user noted. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that it's not a reliable, scholarly source. However, it's a moot point as the article obviously doesn't support the sentence cited to it, and even if it did the sentence is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The above user is wrong about the source but right about the material, probably for the wrong reasons.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There is much more material in that article, such as

Some of the same people who portray Truman as a dependable supporter of a Jewish state also describe him as having been a proto-Zionist or a Christian Zionist along the lines of Britain’s Arthur Balfour or David Lloyd George, who in 1917 got the British government to champion a Jewish homeland in Palestine...
Truman was not a philo-Semite like Balfour or Lloyd George. He was skeptical of the idea that Jews were a chosen people. (“I never thought God picked any favorites,” he wrote in his diary in 1945.) He had the ethnic prejudices of a small town Protestant Midwesterner...

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Map Colors

I feel the Dutch and Russian colors used in the map referencing the Americas in this article are too close, and very hard to discern in the form it is presented. I did not find a way to alter, or access the portion of the article with the map. Taceo (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Settler demographics in the Israeli-occupied territories

Ubikwit, I see you added about the settler demographics 1.5 month ago but I think there should be sources that talk about this in relation to settler colonialism. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are some sources that reference FMEP and some of the data from the cited report with respect to demographics, etc.

1. Fundamentalist colonialism - the geopolitics of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, Reuveny, Political Geography 22(2003), 347-380
2. Israel's Colonial Predicament, Florian Heyden
3. The Last Colonialist: Israel in the Occupied Territories since 1967, RAFAEL REUVENY, 2008
4. ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
5. Bring the Settlers Home, Liberation Graphics, 2003
6. Factsheet, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, 2010

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying exactly FMEP's statistics must be used but that the data of the Israeli settlements be put in relation to settler colonialism by reliable sources. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I don't have much time for this at the moment, but from a cursory look some of the above sources do appear to discuss that in some depth.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Iraq and Syria

Greyshark09, I see that you added parts about what Syria and Iraq have done and searching on the sentences, it shows they are copied from different Wikipedia articles. Can you give a source that describes this as settler colonialism? I will remove it now until this can be shown to be about settler colonialism as this article is about. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, will do.GreyShark (dibra) 11:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually adding the Turkish settler colonial issues as more notable (in Cyprus and Turkish Kurdistan). Will look into Ba'athist settlement policies in Syria and Iraq later on.GreyShark (dibra) 12:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Do the last paragraph you added also deal with settler colonialism? --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, also added on colonialism in Baathist Iraq - supporting with two academic opinions.GreyShark (dibra) 16:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Regarding "an act often referred as", that source calls it "international colonialism" but "often referred as" has no basis. The last part of the sentence about Francis Kofi Abiew's book needs to be paraphrased or quotation marks should be added because too much is copied.

You also readded the last paragraph (which makes it the fifth article to contain two of three sentences) but if the sources don't speak about it in relation to settler colonialism, it is WP:OR. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

For this reason, I have now removed the last part. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, i will add more sources.GreyShark (dibra) 10:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Balance

This article is a minefield, in my opinion. Almost inevitably the hottest conflict is over Israel-Palestine, but the section on Vietnam seems wildly disproportionate in its detail. The section on Indonesia is to some degree similar, and some of the assertions seem ill-supported. Actio (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess the sections for Vietnam, Philippines, and Israel should be shorter in this overview article.HistoryHistory (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Settlers

Any inhabited area of the world has been settled at some stage. This has been the mode of how people spread around the world. Why single out, when White people did that in historical times? --105.0.6.230 (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Settler colonialism is a specific interpretation of colonialism that has a substantial body of historiography behind it. The general phenomenon is not under dispute. The above discussion is more about specific instances and whether or not they can be understood in this analytic framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark R Stoneman (talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This page is extremely biased. Instead of laying out basic facts, it lays blame to certain cultures. I think the entire page should be scrapped and written from the start without pointing blame at certain nationalities or certain ethnic groups as well as not stating certain modern cultures were destructive by another which is biased as well UltraViolet2000 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Autocorrect above changed my sentence. It should say not stating modern cultures were destroyed by another which is biased as well UltraViolet2000 (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

References

The opening section of the article is incoherent.

The first two paragraphs of the article read well for the most part. It's the 3rd that's just plain confusing. The first two paragraphs introduce the concept of settler colonialism (except for that part that compares it to "normal" colonialism. What is "normal" colonialism? What makes that type of colonialism normal and not settler colonialism?) But anyway, then we get to the 3rd paragraph, which starts with the phrase "Settler colonialism is generally discussed in terms of the one-way flow of British values." Uh, what? What do "British values" have to do with ancient Greek settlers? Or Japan in the middle ages? (And what are "British values" anyway?)

I would suggest the entire 3rd paragraph needs to be completely reworked, or else moved to another section or even completely scrapped. I would do it, but I don't know enough about the topic to make any informed changes. But as someone who came to this article because it's linked to from a page on Greek colonisation, I found the introductory section to be incoherent in the way it suddenly jumps from an introduction to the topic to an emotionally charged diatribe against the British.Ddaveonz (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Settler colonialism is a form of colonialism that seeks to replace the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers."

This seems a rather restrictive definition. It definitely would not apply to pretty much any African colony, many of which have been described as settler colonies. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eldomtom2; it seems poorly formulated. The whole reason European settler slavery practices were "ended" in the past few centuries is that Europeans re-discovered what older civilizations had known for millennia: that it's far more efficient to have an underclass of laborers who are forced to obtain their own food and housing and to take care of their elderly, than to have slave owners directly micro-manage all of those things. It doesn't end up being desirable to replace indigenous societies, just to yoke them to the new settler society; they and their labor are a resource to be extracted, too.

Even in the case of Nazi Germany and Lebensraum ideals, their economy became immediately addicted to Jewish slave labor and compelled labor from the Slavs who they were supposedly going to annihilate and replace in Eastern Europe. They'd never have been able to give up Untermenschen labor to do all the work themselves—being Prussian nobles with a laboring Slavic underclass was too recent a memory.

I haven't come across a good single definition yet, but all of the European settler societies where the settlers became an aristocracy or other upper-crust dominating laboring underclasses seem to be categorized as settler colonialism in the sources I'm browsing through; complete displacement, or even an attempt to displace the existing population, doesn't seem necessary. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

European & British over-emphasis in lead

The article seems to focus unduly on European colonialism in the second paragraph and, in the third, British colonialism. This disregards non-European empires which engaged in settler colonialism, which can be found across Africa, the Middle East and East Asia. Examples are provided in the article. There is also an undue focus on recent examples, so it seems to me. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I have attempted to remedy this, removing content this is unsourced or places undue focus or is not discussed beyond the lead and placing templates for more & better sources. Feel free to raise any issues with these edits here (ping me) or on my talk page. thorpewilliam (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine

The latest edit to the section pertaining to Israel-Palestine adds the following:

The Zionism movement leaders were publicly talking of a compulsory transfer of the native population in Mandatory Palestine since the 1930’s, such as in this letter to his son, Ben-Gurion wrote “...I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.”

The first major wave of depopulation of the native Palestinians happened in 1948, when 700,000 Palestinians were led to leave their villages and towns in today’s Israel. Historians such as Ilan Pappe and Benny Morris, who analysed unclassified IDF archives, concluded that the major reasons behind the Palestinians exodus were expulsion, intimidation, and fear of massacres and rape.

I'm not going to touch this myself, as I haven't yet made 500 edits, but I have some concerns about this addition:

• It's poorly written.
• The quote from Ben-Gurion, which is cited as being from to a 'letter to his son' (presumably the 1937 Ben-Gurion letter), is actually from the minutes of the meeting of Jewish Agency Executive, 12 June 1938.
• The above quote is used without any context.
• I would suggest this quotation would be better placed in the article about population transfer. Especially in light of the subsequent expulsion of approx 800,000 Jews from centuries-old communities elsewhere in the region.
• Referring to the 'native population' and the 'native Palestinians' is controversial, and does not represent a NPOV. Many Jews would argue that Palestinian Arabs are not native to the Levant, as they trace their lineage to the Arabian Peninsula, and the 7th century Muslim conquest of the Levant (itself a textbook example of settler colonialism), while Jews trace their lineage directly to the Levant. I would suggest using the more objective term 'existing Arab population' instead.

Michael Jacobson (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

First: when someone with less than 100 edits takes upon himself to "Enforcing 500/30 restrictions on editing content related to Israel-Palestine conflict"..hmmm, that's a bit rich. I am glad you will abstain from editing the article until you have reached 500 edits.

Secondly: your statement "while Jews trace their lineage directly to the Levant": Huh?? AFAIK, the Jews were also "immigrants"; in Biblical history: with Abraham; (historically it is another matter: too bad en.wp does such a bad job of differentiating between what the Bible says, and what other sources/archeology says). (And I will not even mention the Khazar theory). Also; some argue the Palestinian population descends (partly) from converts (see eg Yatta). Alas, when we go more that a thousand years back: we are, AFAIK, on very uncertain ground. But: If we look at "recent history" (= the last few hundred years); 'native Palestinians' is not controversial at all: it is a fact.

Thirdly: I actually agree that the section could be better formulated and sourced (eg, page-number); I will try to work on that next week (or if anyone else would care to do so before me?) - Just now I am a bit occupied with Lebanon-articles, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Huldra,

To your first point, I am sorry if I overstepped myself, but I was only reverting an unsourced edit made by an IP editor, and not making my own addition or adjustment. I was unsure of the correctness of a non-500/30 editor like myself doing this, and I sought advice on the matter from more experienced editors on the Help Desk before I did anything.

With regards your second point, I'm afraid you are mistaken about Jewish history. The biblical account of the Israelites certainly portrays them as having travelled to the land of Canaan from Egypt, but I do not regard the bible as a credible historical source. Archeologists have established, fairly incontrovertibly, that the Israelites were a Late Bronze Age Canaanite people, and that the origin myths are inaccurate in this regard, indeed the Hebrew language is classified by linguists as a Canaanite language. Please see History of ancient Israel and Judah for more on this.

The Khazar theory only pertains to Ashkenazi Jews, not to Jews in general, and it has been thoroughly debunked by numerous ethnographers, geneticists, linguists, and historians. Rather, the overwhelming evidence currently confirms that all ethnic Jewish populations have their origins in the Levant, and that they continue to share more ancestry with one another than with the populations among whom they have lived throughout their exile. Please see Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry.

It is almost certainly true that some modern Palestinians have ethnic Jewish origins that predate the 7th century Islamic conquest, but they can no longer be regarded as native/indigenous per UN guidelines on the matter as they have not retained 'Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies', 'Distinct social, economic or political systems', or 'Distinct language, culture and beliefs'. Please see the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues factsheet.

We are not at all on uncertain ground if we go back more than a few centuries: much of Jewish history is well documented and much has been substantiated by modern archeological and genetic research, to which I have already alluded. For a further example, the (ethnic Jewish) Roman historian Flavius Josephus wrote extensively about the First Jewish-Roman War, to which he was a living witness.

Finally, there has been much written on intra-Ottoman migration, and there have been a number of assertions that a considerable number of the Arabs who resided in what became the State of Israel in 1948 were recent migrants. Please see this article from the Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies for more information. It is instructive to note that Yasser Arafat frequently claimed descent from ancient Canaanites and Jebusites, but his family in fact only settled in Gaza in the 17th century, and continued to maintain sizeable land holdings in Egypt into the 20th century.

As I stated previously, use of the term 'native Palestinian' is problematic (for a number of reasons on which I have now expanded). I would, again, suggest the term 'existing Arab population', which represents a NPOV.

I'd also like to repeat my query about the appropriateness/relevance of this addition to this article, as opposed to the one on population transfer. No serious thinkers claim that there wasn't a significant exodus of Arabs out of Palestine as a result of the 1948 war, but most Jews regard this not as settler colonialism, but as an act of Jewish decolonisation.

Michael Jacobson (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

the levant includes Mesopotamia, which is where the bible says the Jews originally cam from , and the Khazar theory has been thoroughly discredited- only anitsemites still bring it up,. But this is just one of the points Michael.jacobson raised, which you did not address when you restored that material

Some comments:

• The leading sentence is inaccurate in that discussion by Zionists about what to do about the inhabitants of Palestine date back earlier than the 30s. Hertzl wrote about transporting them outside the borders of Palestine. I should think that ideologists such as Max Nordau, an opponent at what may be called, in modern terms, multiculturalism, also gave it consideration. The difficulty would be finding sources which discussed that in the context of settler colonialism.
• The idea that Palestinian Arabs are descended solely from Muslim invaders who swept aside those invaded is one held by Zionists, not Palestinians.
• As reported in this Haaretz article, genetic comparisons were made between various contemporary groups and Caananites who lived, roughly, between 2500 B.C.E. and 1000 B.C.E. Ironically, given Zionist claims about the ancestry of Palestinians, Saudi Arabians and Bedouins were among the people who had the strongest match: "Saudi Arabians, Bedouins and Iranian Jews had the highest ratio, hovering around 90 percent." Palestians were among those with the next closest match: "These were followed by Palestinians, Jordanians and Syrians, with an 80 percent of ancestry shared with the ancient Levantines." Moroccan and Ashkenazi Jews came in lower: "Moroccan and Ashkenazi Jews had a roughly 70 and 60 percent contribution. Somewhat unsurprisingly, most of the rest of the ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews comes from Europe. The lowest percentages of Middle Eastern ancestry were found in modern-day Moroccans (40 percent), and 20 percent for Ethiopian Jews, who have a strong contribution from Eastern African ancestry."

    ←   ZScarpia   19:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smiles.2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CarletonFP.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ethanpurnell, Joroy4400.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ewk'sik'nii13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mkw2015, Dokemaw, Mackamarine.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

South Africa

Hello, it seems as the section which talks about South Africa has the wrong commonwealth linked. Referring to the section "There was a historic struggle to achieve the intended British sovereignty that was achieved in other parts of the commonwealth. " . The link for 'commonwealth' seems to link to the Commonwealth of England (1649–1660) and not what its most likely referring to either the Commonwealth Realm (soverign states which have Elizabeth II as their monarch) or the Commonwealth of Nations (IGO of mainly former states of the British Empire). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2007:1FD:E120:3347:F76A:121D (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

wp:synth

The source has to be directly related to this article for it to be used. Mentioning colonialism is not the same as discussing settler colonialism. Reflexively reverting material removed as synth without demonstrating that it is not is disruptive. Doubly so when the edit summary shows the synthesis. nableezy - 16:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Some scholars in the field define settler colonialism as a separate phenomenon from colonialism. There are a ton of high-quality scholarly sources on settler colonialism, which is all the more reason to remove any source that doesn't verifiably mention the topic.

This article has a huge problem with original research, citing sources that don't mention settler colonialism. (t · c) buidhe 17:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Whether it is a sub-topic or a separate topic entirely, the source has to discuss this topic specifically to be used here. Agree on the OR issue, think youll find that in any controversial topic in which people want to shoehorn in their favored views. nableezy - 17:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Ireland should be removed from this list

This article erroneously cites Ireland alongside the Americas and Africa as an example of "settler colonialism" -the only European territory listed on this page. The article does not, for example, cite the Spanish Netherlands or, say, Napoleon's Italy or Alsace-Lorraine - which would also fall under the broad banner of "settler colonialism". Instead it implies a false equivalence between the settler-colonialist experience in Ireland and that of non-European countries that are, quite frankly, classified as "third world" today.

Reliable sources warn against doing this[6]. The list should either be expanded to include a more diverse group of colonial experiences, or Ireland should be removed completely from the page and dealt with in Irish history articles. And even if the list is expanded, Ireland should still be temporarily removed until that's done. If Ireland was included in this article for political reasons it could be more serious.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ireland is included because there are sufficient sources to merit its own article (Plantations of Ireland). Are you arguing for its removal on the basis that other instances within Europe aren't currently present? It sounds to me like that's an argument for including those other instances (provided proper reliable sourcing exists), rather than removing a section from the article. aismallard (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Tricky one, I would have said this was an example of the ordinary colonialism (ie imperial exploitation of local labour) but for the fact that chunks of land ended up in "settler" hands. Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that the Plantations of Ireland, Penal Laws and Irish Rebellion of 1641 articles are useful reading on Wikipedia for gaining an insight for why Ireland is an example of settler colonialism. As far as anti-Irish racism goes, the article on Robert Knox touches on its appearance in the early development of scientific racism.     ←   ZScarpia   11:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The quote in the first line of the lead

is usually attributed to Alicia Fox? (in the further reading section). Is it the only mainline definition? If there are others as well then perhaps we need a slightly different form of words like "has been described by/defined as... by (academics?).Selfstudier (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Painting for header

Hi everyone,

I feel this article would be benefited from art in the header that shows a neutral (i.e. unbiased) depiction of a historical instance of settler colonialism. If the general consensus agrees this is an appropriate idea, I implore fellow editors - particularly editors of color who are most knowledgeable about the effects of settler colonialism - to find a suitable image.

Thanks, The Fonz (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

kashmir ?! what was the original author smoking

kashmir has been an integral part of ancient indian kingdoms, was part of british india, was part of the mighal empire, delhi sultanate, gupta empire, the maurya empire and has always, always been considered as an indian territory. nobody except partisan hacks disagrees with that, the only bone of contention has ALWAYS been about which south asian polity ultimately gets to control kashmir, not whether it would get controlled by them. 2001:8F8:173D:559C:7C74:A3AE:6A0D:FAC7 (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You can take that up with the original author. Wikipedia is written in a neutral point of view and it cites information from reliable sources. The source stating Kashmir is a colonial state is reliable, regardless of your personal opinion about its content. To that end, please stop removing it from the article. WPscatter ^t/_c 08:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

it's....not reliable lol. it's a source from a opinionated study. it's not peer reviewed, nor has it been given credence through multiple other sources or literally anything of the sort.. this is the equivalent of linking a study that says 'milk causes autism' by PETA and saying it's reliable. stop reverting constantly when you're literally a 20 day old account with no experience 2001:8F8:173D:559C:7C74:A3AE:6A0D:FAC7 (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you say it isn't peer reviewed? They claim to be peer-reviewed, and it's a scientific journal. Again, your personal opinion does not change the reliability of a source. If you want to make an argument for this source being unreliable, feel free, and if you get consensus then we can remove it from the article. Until then, you're just gonna get blocked if you keep reverting our reversions (see: WP:3RR). WPscatter ^t/_c 08:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

That "20 day old account" has it right. It appears to be a reliable source and as far as I can see you're removing it for illegitimate reasons. — Czello 09:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is there next to no mention of Canada in this article?

I'm perplexed.Iguana0000 (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Needs to be a theory section below the introduction and before examples

For a full explanation of the framework, some of which is in the intro. It can get into a brief academic history, comparisons with other types of colonialism, and relations to fields such as indigenous studies, postcolonial studies, history, etc. The introduction can also be more accessible (and shorter). Gegenpresser (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Antiquity and Pre-Columbian settling excluded?

I am unlikely to pursue Settler Colonialism studies enough to answer my questions below.

I would have expected Settler Colonialism per se to be limited to modern European colonialism. Yet, it is interesting to see Chinese and Japanese colonialism included. I don't mind their inclusion, I appreciate it actually, and they don't exhaust the list of non-European colonial empires, but I wonder if they were intended by or included in the original or current concept of Settler Colonialism.

I may be unusual in this, but the broad concept of colonization through settlement rapidly brings to mind the hugely influential Hellenization and Romanization settlements. Would not the expansion of the Mississippian culture have depended on colonial agricultural settlements displacing other populations? Is there a place for Antiquity and Pre-Columbian settling in this article?

I am struggling to envision migration and expansion of any culture without colonizing settlements. I would think an academic expert on Settler Colonialism could be helpful here.

IveGoneAway (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Settler colonialism is migration and expansion of any culture, when it replaces another culture. DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Settler-colonialism is a theoretical framework developed in the mid-1990s and is largely used to refer to the post-Columbian era. As for construct validity and the accuracy of the various theoretical underpinnings, that is a matter for scholars to debate amongst themselves.

Wikipedia is there to relay information through a balanced and well-sourced 'perspective' (for lack of better word).

I do think it would be appropriate to include a mention of why it is not often used to refer to the history of human migration, colonization and settlement (including when interacting between populations as migration and evolution of territory and culture does not stop (obviously) when a populations ancestor reach a region first). PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You cant just claim that what scholars write as fact is "a theory" or "theoretical framework". The scholarly works that describe settler colonialism are defining it, not inventing a framework. nableezy - 02:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I’d check PresidentCoriolanus’s recent edits around this topic. They’re pushing a POV at odds with current settler colonial and Indigenous studies scholarship across a few pages.—GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I recently edited a few linked pages to share relevant topical literature including assessments of the current state of historical, archaeological and anthropological scholarship. You immediately vandalized all of them by arbitrarily removing citations with reasoning applicable to other citations. I was citing mainstream scholarship on the subject. Again, please use talk pages before vandalizing or present valid reasons as per Wiki guidelines for removal or modification of content.

The pages I edited were to do with population history and genocide scholarship, not simply the field of settler colonial studies or indigenous studies. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have further noticed you went through my edits of a wide variety of topics and randomly picked one about pre-Columbian use of fire and also vandalized a prominent study on the subject. This directly goes against the purpose of an encyclopedia which is to maintain proportionate representation of diverse points of view in scholarly literature especially when already-cited authors who take a *represented viewpoint themselves state that other viewpoints are dominant in the field.* PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Settler colonialism is a theoretical framework largely based on the works of Patrick Wolfe as evidenced in the wiki summary. Wikipedia is based on neutral point of view. without restricting our understanding of the facts of a given topic.

Concepts like 'primitive accumulation' or 'settler-colonialism' should be specified as concepts especially as they are evolutions of older concepts proposed in niche scholarly fields.

I'm not sure if the comment is relevant to whether or not the article should include pre-Columbian colonization and settlement processes in America and other continents. My perspective is it should not as the theoretical framework was developed to describe the opinions of certain scholars on the European Age of Exploration. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You are just making a personal opinion about a topic, not providing any sources to buttress your claims. And you are edit-warring. Kindly self-revert. nableezy - 05:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@nableezy re: your comment 'You cant just claim that what scholars write as fact is "a theory" or "theoretical framework". The scholarly works that describe settler colonialism are defining it, not inventing a framework'.

Forgive me, perhaps this is a philosophical debate that doesn't belong here, but is this an entirely fair criticism? A theory or theoretical framework doesn't discount the fact/object/phenomenon that what it refers to is nonetheless real. Or am I misreading what you're saying? Yr Enw (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Its an issue of how we, Wikipedia, frame things. We accept what scholars say as true unless other equally or better qualified sources dispute them, and then we present those views in accordance with how much weight reliable sources give them. When scholars write about settler colonialism and say it is defined by x, y and z then we follow them and say "Settler colonialism is blah blah x, y and z". What PresidentCoriolanus is aiming to do here is to frame the idea of settler colonialism as being in dispute itself, saying that it only exists as a theoretical framework. Scholars say that settler colonialism is a type of colonialism, with specific characteristics. What PresidentCoriolanus wrote was is a concept emerging from indigenous and postcolonial studies which defines a form of colonialism. nableezy - 18:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Inhabited by "Indigenous" people

"Indigenous" people are generally the first inhabitants of an area. When an area is inhabited by people who were not the first to live there, and it is colonized, the colonizers are still perpetuating colonialism. Thus settler colonialism is immigration to land already inhabited by existing people, not necessarily Indigenous people.

E.g., when the British colonized modern-day Acadia, they displaced mostly French-speaking Canadians, with the goal of replacing them. This would fall under the definition of "settler colonialism". DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You are viewing the social construct in too much of an essentialist fashion. The problem here is that 'first inhabitants' is relative. For example, do we define the Mississippian culture as first inhabitants when it displaced other inhabitants? Scholars have identified hundreds of regions in the Americas where the current 'first' inhabitants are not 'first' cultures.

If we mean culture, all cultures change and evolve significantly when interacting with other populations and as demographics of regions change. As such, the 'first' culture may not necessarily have the same ontic status. The same is true for population genetics to due to admixture and continuous migration.

First is *relative* as such the use of the word indigenous should remain. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @PresidentCoriolanus. "Indigenous" is not a particular accurate term taken in light of the fact populations and cultures are forever settling and relocating in human history, but the term "Indigenous" is one that has been constructed recently in order to refer to those cultures displaced by settler colonialist projects. As to whether you'd debate the difference between other colonialisms and settler colonialism, that's a distinct matter. Yr Enw (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"Indigenous" has not been "constructed recently." Indigeneity has been defined many times over, and the difference between colonialism and settler colonialism is clear. Confusion around either of these definitions and/or the history of these terms is an immediate red flag for the competency required to edit in this area.--GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't whether you've misunderstood my point. I didn't disagree with your second point, I was pointing out to OP that the distinction between colonialism and settler colonialism is a distinct matter to the one he was initially raising.

I have no confusion about that matter.

Neither do I have confusion about the concept of Indigeneity. But when I said recently (in the last couple of hundred years), I mean relative to human history (100,000s of years).

Perhaps my lead sentence was the cause of this confusion. I'm not arguing against using the term. I agree the term has currency relative to where populations have been displaced through colonialism. But identifying the actual "first" inhabitants is a near impossible exercise, that's all I was acknowledging in the first sentence. Yr Enw (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Geraldine I think you are confusing the term 'indigenous' with indigeneity.

Much like the page mentions that the concept of settler-colonialism was developed in the 1990s in indigenous studies fields, indigeneity is as @Yr Enw pointed out, a more recent construction. However, I do not think you are engaging with the question that @DenverCoder19 posited here, which is that because indigeneity is relative, why are we not including examples of other populations.

We do know that indigeneity =/= first peoples because as we know populations migrated constantly in pre-Columbian American history, and we have archaeological evidence of conflict and displacement, as well as evidence in most parts of the Americas that current cultural mappings were generally not the first cultures.

It's like the term migrant and the term migrancy (the latter being a more recent concept in deterritorial and migration studies). PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Indigeneity is not relative. Wolfe is clear about the role that Indigenous identity plays in settler colonialism. Stop trying to redefine settler colonial studies to fit your viewpoint (as you’ve been doing in the above section). GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

List of definitions

• "In this chapter, I interpret the settler colonial situation as primarily premised on the irruption into a specific locale of a sovereign collective of settlers."Verancini but also "inevitably premised on the possibility of controlling and dominating indigenous peoples[7]
• "The key phrases Wolfe coined here – that invasion is a ‘structure not an event’; that settler colonial structures have a ‘logic of elimination’ of Indigenous peoples; that ‘settlers come to stay’ and that they ‘destroy to replace’ – have been taken up as the defining precepts of the field and are now cited by countless scholars across numerous disciplines."[8]
• "Settler colonialism is a relationship. It is related to colonialism but also inherently distinct from it. As a system defined by unequal relationships (like colonialism) where an exogenous collective aims to locally and permanently replace indigenous ones (unlike colonialism), settler colonialism has no geographical, cultural or chronological bounds. It is culturally nonspecific (indeed, a few of the chapters we collect outline the history of settler colonial projects promoted by non-Europeans). It can happen at any time, and everyone is a settler if they are part of a collective and sovereign displacement that moves to stay, that moves to establish a permanent homeland by way of displacement."[9]
• "Settler-colonialism describes the logic and operation of power when colonizers arrive and settle on lands already inhabited by another group. Importantly, settler colonialism operates through a logicof elimination, seeking to eradicate the original inhabitants through violence and other genocidal acts and to replace the existing spiritual, epistemological, political, social, and ecological systems with those of the settler society"[10]
• "settler colonialism is informed and driven by sustained “logic of elimination” that seeks to remove Indigenous peoples to gain access to their territories. It is characterized by inherently dynamic circumstances where Indigenous people (together with “exogenous Others”) “progressively disappear in a variety of ways: extermination, expulsion, incarceration containment, and assimilation for indigenous peoples (or a combination of all these elements)”... The theory of settler colonialism as a structure and logic of elimination has been greatly influential and continues to inform the analysis of colonial configurations and power in the field of critical Indigenous studies (cf. Byrd 2014; Kauanui 2016; Speed 2017). Settlers came to stay, imposing their sovereignties and jurisdictions over existing ones. Obtaining the land for the purposes of establishing a new society invariably requires getting rid of and replacing Indigenous peoples and their societies with settler structures and institutions (Wolfe 2006). Settler colonialism is also characterized by its persistent drive to naturalize its ongoing existence and domesticate settlers as native. Through this naturalization, it seeks to “challenge the meaningful existence of Indigenous life and locate colonial dominances in the past” (Strakosch 2015, 50). The settler colonial system thus becomes the taken-for-granted and self-evident background and reality for settler existence and their political and legal structures (Rifkin 2013)."[11]
• " the United States is a present-day settler colonial society whose laws and policies function to support an ongoing structure of invasion called "settler colonialism," which operates through the processes of Indigenous elimination and the subordination of racialized outsiders"[12]
• "settler colonialism is an ongoing structure geared toward the elimination of Indigenous presence"[13]

(t · c) buidhe 05:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The current first sentence is heavily misleading given the fundamental distinction between immigrants and settlers according to the settler colonial paradigm (i.e. see Mamdani's Neither Settler nor Native) (t · c) buidhe 05:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Almost non existent information regarding Settler Colonialism in Africa

There is almost no info on settler colonialism outside South Africa, one can add multiple cases such as Zimbabwe, Angola and more... Not enough of a great expert, so I don't feel too comfortable adding a lot of info in this regard. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Canada

Why is Canada not mentioned in the article? Unless I'm grossly mistaken somehow, Canada is probably one of the most unambiguous examples of settler colonialism. Funcancer (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Original research

Article is about settler colonialism as a theory, not about the history of individual countries. All sources cited in the article, to avoid NOR, should explicitly mention settler colonialism. (t · c) buidhe 14:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2023

Delete FN 63 (Busbridge, Rachel (2018). "Israel-Palestine and the Settler Colonial 'Turn': From Interpretation to Decolonization". Theory, Culture & Society. 35 (1): 97–98. doi:10.1177/0263276416688544. S2CID 151793639)

I am the author of this article and the way it is used is NOT an accurate representation of its contents. 175.38.253.233 (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Removed (t · c) buidhe 03:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Here's the article's wording [14]

  The accusation of colonialism leveraged against Zionism has generally been received with great repugnance by Jewish Israelis (save for a minority of scholars and activists), and is often portrayed as either an attack on the legitimacy of the State of Israel or evidence of anti-Semitism.

  Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  That was copied from Zionism as settler colonialism where the same sentence appears, and is also in the lead there. nableezy - 06:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  I took a look at the cited source and wasn't immediately able to verify it. I might have missed something, but the text does have to be verifiable to be included. (t · c) buidhe 06:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, was just saying the problem was only solved here. I haven’t read the source yet so don’t feel comfortable removing it there. nableezy - 16:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Liberia

Why is Liberia omitted from this article? It should be classified as a settler colonial state akin to Israel and Taiwan. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Source? (t · c) buidhe 15:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/03/our-liberian-legacy/304821/ DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2024

As far as I can tell, that article doesn't mention settler colonialism. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The article described Liberia as an American colony formed by the American Colonization Society to repatriate African-Americans. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the concept of settler colonialism. In order to merit inclusion in this article, at a minimum the source must be about settler colonialism. This source is not, so it does not meet the criteria. See WP:NOR. (btw, I disagree with the "by country" format, because I don't think it's helpful for conveying information and distracts from the key aspects of the topic). (t · c) buidhe 05:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Liberia was a colony settled by African-Americans actually proves my point of the American Colonization Society being a settler colonial project. Have a look at the Colony of Liberia article. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)